Your Right to Know

By Adam LiptakThe New York Times • Wednesday February 26, 2014 6:10 AM

WASHINGTON — In a pair of 6-3 decisions, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that police may
sometimes search homes over the objections of one of their residents and that criminal defendants
are not entitled to hearings to try to gain access to frozen assets to pay their attorneys.

The case about searches followed a confrontation at the Los Angeles home of Walter Fernandez,
who was suspected of a role in a robbery.

“You don’t have any right to come in here,” he told police officers. “I know my rights.”

Police arrested Fernandez after seeing that he apparently had beaten his domestic partner,
Roxanne Rojas, who also was there. An hour later, with Fernandez at a police station, police
returned, and Rojas let them in. They found weapons and evidence linking Fernandez to the
robbery.

He eventually was convicted on multiple charges and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

The question for the justices was whether the police should have obtained a warrant in light of
Fernandez’s objection.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said no. The general rule, he said, is
that any occupant’s consent is sufficient.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan,
wrote that “the police could readily have obtained a warrant to search the shared residence.”

The second decision featured a more scrambled alignment and a spirited dissent from Chief
Justice John Roberts, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sotomayor.

The case arose from the prosecution of Kerri and Brian Kaley, a New York couple, who were
accused of participating in a scheme to obtain and sell prescription medical devices. They were
unable to hire a lawyer to defend themselves because the government had frozen their assets.

The Kaleys sought a hearing at which they could try to show that they were entitled to use the
frozen money to defend themselves because the charges against them were flawed. Kagan, writing for
the majority, rejected that request.

In dissent, Roberts said the right to a lawyer of one’s choice was crucial.